SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

COUNTY OF JEFFERSON

WIND POWER ETHICS GROUP

Petitioner-Plaintiff, AFFIDAVIT OF
MICHAEL BELL
- against-

PLANNING BOARD OF THE Index No. 10-2882

TOWN OF CAPE VINCENT, and
RICHARD EDSALL, TOM RIENBECK,
GEORGE MINGLE, ANDREW BINSLEY, and
KAREN BOURCY, in their capacities as
planning board members,

Respondents-Defendants, and

ST. LAWRENCE WINDPOWER, LLC,

Respondents-Defendant

MICHAEL BELL being duly sworn, deposes and says:

1. I live at 6417 Gosier Road, Cape Vincent, NY in the Town of Cape

Vincent, and have lived there with my wife Dolores and daughter Raphaela since

2007. Previously I lived in the Village of Cape Vincent for six years and have been

a resident of Cape Vincent for 45 years.

2. Compared to living in the village, my Gosier Road property is

approximately six miles from the village, and one mile from regular traffic on NYS

Route 12E and any other regular road traffic, so it is very quiet, especially at nigh!.

3. I have invested a considerable amount of time and money in my home

and, based on my review of the differences between the Cape Vincent Planning

Board's noise engineers and the noise engineer hired by Wind Power Ethics
 Group (WPEG) on the one side, and the noise engineer hired by the developers of

the St. Lawrence Wind Project (SLW) on the other side, I'm concerned that I will

lose the peace and quiet I enjoy if the SLW project is approved and built as

proposed.

4. I have made several comments to the Cape Vincent Planning Board

and Cape Vincent Town Board and no one from the town has addressed my

concerns. That is why I am a member of the WPEG in Cape Vincent.

5. I have been attending WPEG meetings to become better informed

about the Planning Board's review of the SLW project proposal since September

2010.

6. Our home and property is nearly surrounded by neighbors who signed

wind leases with SLW. My home and the finally proposed turbines that will

surround my property are shown in Exhibit A (CR 4697).

7. Exhibit B, which is an enlargement of the map at CR 4696, pinpoints my

home and shows that I am surrounded by nine turbines. For the five closest

turbines proposed in SLW's SDEIS (CR 2949), the closest turbine is one-third of a

mile away, two are less than Y, mile away, and two more a little more than Y, mile

from our house. Compared to the SDEIS, the FEIS (CR 4696) shows all five

SDEIS proposed turbines are in the same location, and one additional turbine is

added close to our home. See Exhibit B. Our situation will therefore be far worse

than most Cape Vincent landowners who live miles away.

8. These turbines will be spinning around us whenever we are outdoors,

which is nearly all the time. But our spoiled view is not our major problem. In
comments my wife and I sent to the town in a letter dated May 28, 2009 (CR

3232) we mentioned a number of concerns, none of which were about the view.

Our major concerns are with health and safety, particularly issues that might hurt

our daughter.

9. Noise is my major concern, although I also expressed to the Planning

Board concern about shadow flicker. I also have concerns about protecting short-

eared owls, as I live in an area with lots of protected owls and don't want to see

them harmed by windmills.

10. I am most concerned with wind turbine noise. It will destroy the peace

and quiet at my property, which is w,hat my family enjoys most about our location,

and was the main reason we chose to build .our house where it is today on the

Gosier Road.

11. I mentioned in my May 2009 comments (CR 3232) about a sound study

done at our home in 2007 by Clif Schneider (1560 Vincent St, Cape Vincent, NY).

He had a professional meter and took sound measurements for a couple days

each in May and September, 2007. His results (Exhibit C) showed that

background noise levels at night were much lower (26 dBA) than those assumed

by the developer (37 dBA, CR 4682), and agrees with the Planning Board's own

noise consultants.

12. Clif Schneider also submitted to the Planning Board comments on

SLW's DEIS on June 12, 2007' and used our situation as an example. He

explained to the planning board how Acciona's proposed wind project turbines
1 Schneider's DEIS comments are not part of the Certified Record and his comments have been
removed from the DEIS and FEIS seotions of SLW's website. They were, however, included in
the copy of SLW's FEIS availabie at the Cape Vincent Community Library and are attached
hereto as Exhibit D.
could increase the sound levels at our house by 20 dBA. Exhibit D at 8. He also

explained this would be considered "very objectionable to intolerable" according to

NYSDEC Program Policy "Assessing and Mitigating Noise Impacts." CJ SLW

Memorandum of Law, December 9,2010, Exhibit B at 15.

13. In their FEIS Acciona/SLW predict a mean sound level of 42 dBA at our

home (Exhibit B, CR 4696). That could be 16 dBA higher (42-26=16) in the

evening and night at our home, generally, and because this is a mean value, noise

levels could go much higher at times, such as at night when we are trying to sleep.

14. Turbine noise increases of 16 dBA arid more at our home will exceed

State policy, which says no more than 6 dBA. See SLW Memorandum of Law,

December 9,2010, Exhibit B at 14 ("In non-industrial settings the SPL [sound

pressure level] should probably not exeed ambient noise by more than 6 dB(A) at

the receptor. An increase of 6 dB(A) may cause complaints."). This will be too

noisy for people who expect peace and quiet. We want SLW turbine noise to

comply with State guidelines, no more than 6 dBA over the 26 dBA measured at

our home.

15. The complaint resolution process explained to my wife by Planning

Board Chairman Mr. Richard Edsall would allow only one chance for a complaint.

If the complaint was not supported by windmill noise data, no other complaints

could be made by that resident. I am concerned that the complaint process

provides only afler-the-fact response to noise impacts, is controlled by the

developer, and provides no assurance that excessive noise will be unlikely.

16. In our May 28, 2009 letter (CR 3232) to the planning board we
concluded with this, "We started building our home over 5 years ago. If we knew

then what we knew now we wouldn't of build our home here. The public officials

did us a disservice by not letting us know of the proposed windmills." In our

opinion nothing has changed in the last year and a half. The town's planning

board continues to ignore our concerns. They said concerns would be addressed,

yet all stages of the permit process have been rushed through approval without

adequate public comment or discussion.

17. I believe the peace and quiet my family and I enjoy will be lost if SLW is

allowed to place their turbines as close to my home as they propose. Not only has

the Planning Board ignored our concerns, but Acciona has ignored us too. They

never stopped to talk to me about their project and how it will change our life.

~/I~
MICHAEL BELL

Subscribed and s~rn to before me

this.22:: day of lliuwh ,2010

CYtrulifIL· Q~
NOTARY PUBLIC

C~~R'-OTTEA. FRESE
"olaf)' Public, Slale of New Vorl!
Qualified in Jeff. Co. No. 0lS05076199
Commission Expires April 21,.i2Q1.L
 Exhibit A
Location of the Bell home in relation to Acciona/SLW turbine layout (CR 4697).

Bell Home
 Exhibit B
Enlarged section of FEIS map (CR 4696) indicating predicted 42 dBA average
turbine noise levels at Bell home. Average means half the time they would be
louder. The five closest turbines are 1700, 2100, 2500, 2900 and 2900 feet from
the home. The SDEIS map (CR 2949) shows that in spite of Bells SDEIS
comments another turbine was added to the array surrounding Bell's home.

FEIS MAP (CR 4696) SDEIS MAP (CR 2949)

Turbine Added
In FEIS

Bell Home
 Exhibit C
Results of background sound level monitoring at the home of Michael and Dolores
Bell, Gosier Rd., Cape Vincent New York. Measurements were taken by Clif
Schneider with a calibrated Quest Model 2900 integrated sound level meter, Type
II, on May 30-31 and September 1-3, 2007.

B A C K G R O U N D S O U N D L E V E L S A T BELL'S P R O P E R T Y

60

55
L90 SOUND LEVEL (dBA)

50
45
SEP
40
M AY
35
30

25
20
:5 M
1: A M

:5 M
4: A M

6: A M
7: A M
8: A M
9: A M
2: A M
3: A M

5: A M

:5 M
51 M
9: P M

:5 M

2: P M
3: P M
4: P M
5: P M
PM
:5 M
:5 M

1: P M
12 1 A
11 1 A
P

10 1 P
11 1 P
12 1 P

10 1 A
51

51
51
51
51
51
1
51
51
51
51
51
51
51

51
1
5

5
7:
8:

TIME

Evening and night-time background levels were near 25 dBA for both spring and
fall. Early morning bird songs were noticeable in May and higher daytime sound
levels in September.
 Exhibit D
Clif Schneider comment letter, submitted to the Cape Vincent Planning Board

regarding St. Lawrence Wind DEIS, dated June 12, 2007

Clif Schneider SLW DEIS COMMENTS June 12, 2007

June 6, 2007

Mr. Richard Edsall, Chairman

& Members of the Cape Vincent Planning Board
Town of Cape Vincent
1964 NYS Rte. 12E
Cape Vincent, NY 13618

Dear Rich and Board Members:

The following comments represent my review of the St. Lawrence Wind Farm (AES-
Acciona) Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). As you know, most of my
concerns are with wind turbine noise, specifically with AES-Acciona’s effect on non-
participating landowners. From my view, the principal focus of your efforts should be to
guide wind farm development while protecting the rights of non-participating
landowners, because they will have many of these wind turbines sited as close to them as
those participating landowners. But, the difference is the non-participating landowners
will have many of the negative impacts without any notable financial compensation.

My comments are organized into two parts. The first part is for you and the Planning
Board’s consideration. I apologize for this lengthy letter, but context is important,
especially for a complex issue that may have long-term, irreversible effects on Cape
Vincent. The second part is a series of questions I have for AES-Acciona and their
consultant regarding issues related to their DEIS documents. I should reiterate my
position once again in order to make my intentions perfectly clear. I support wind
energy, but not unequivocally. All the environmental studies should be done well;
unfortunately that has not been the case with AES-Acciona. I also have come to the
conclusion that developers are putting wind turbines much to close to people.

Rather than only discuss a series of facts related to noise issues, I would prefer to put a
local face on the issue. Mike and Delores Bell expect to move into their new home on
the Gosier Road this summer. The have a nice site on a quiet country road – the Gosier
Road. If you examine the turbine site plan provided by AES-Acciona you will notice the
Bell’s home will be surrounded by wind turbines. The ten closest turbines range from
1,305 to 3,575 feet (0.25- 0.68 miles) distant, averaging 2,430 ft (0.46 miles). From
information that follows you will see that Bell’s quiet, rural setting may be unalterably
changed if AES-Acciona is allowed to develop their project as currently planned.
Furthermore, I believe the noise assessment provided by AES-Acciona does not
accurately reflect the degree of additional noise that will be heard at the Bell’s new home.
I urge the Planning Board to carefully examine how the Bell’s may be affected by wind
farm noise, and I also request that AES-Acciona reconsider their site plan and re-examine
their noise assessment.

Method for Assessing Noise Impacts – From what I have found reviewing a number of
wind farm DEISs on the web, the usual approach for assessing noise impacts is to use

1
Clif Schneider SLW DEIS COMMENTS June 12, 2007

turbine source sound levels and to calculate their noise at nearby residences. Generally,
the noise generated by these machines is well understood and is provided by
manufacturers. AES-Acciona used a commercially available computer model to predict
noise at various locations within the bounds of their project. These models calculate
spread loss of sound and account for various factors that affect noise propagation. Once
they have predicted noise levels for each residence they compare them to some type of
noise standard established by local municipalities. Developers often quote New York
State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) policy, 1 but in reality
developers do not have to comply with any state or federal noise standards, because there
are no standards. AES-Acciona concluded from their assessment of the potential noise
impacts for their St. Lawrence Wind Farm that turbines, “…would be inaudible at most
residences.” From what I have been able to determine, however, the reverse is true -- the
St. Lawrence Wind Farm will be clearly audible throughout much of the area within the
bounds of the wind turbine complex.

Noise Standards – In the process of developing an amendment to Cape Vincent’s zoning

law, the intention in establishing a noise standard and other guidelines for wind farm
development was, “…to provide adequate regulations to properly site Wind Power
Facilities in a manner consistent with the Town’s Comprehensive Plan, to mitigate
potential negative impacts on the Seaway Trail, St. Lawrence River, and Lake Ontario,
and to minimize impacts on surrounding properties (my emphasis), while also allowing
providers to meet their power generating objectives.”2

On September 16, 2006 you adopted the draft zoning amendment to help guide wind
farm development. The draft amendment states wind turbine noise should not to exceed
ambient (background) noise levels by more than 5 dBA3. This noise limitation began as a
50 dBA limit on noise, but after many iterations the 5 dBA limit above background noise
levels was endorsed by the Town Board, but was never formally adopted. This noise
guideline allows wind farm developers to add more noise to the background, but it is also
designed to help protect people from excessive noise. Pertaining to some of the
assumptions and conclusions made in AES-Acciona’s sound level report, it is also
important to know what the amendment did not say. It did not say the 5 dBA limitation
only pertains to maximum background levels, it did not say it only applies to average
background levels, nor did it say it only pertains to daytime conditions. There were no
stipulated limitations for the 5 dBA-above-background guideline other than background
levels will be established at the time of site plan review and that background levels shall
be measured at the property line of non-participating landowners.

Background Noise – Accurately establishing the background noise level in Cape

Vincent is especially important because of the way the noise guideline is framed in the
Planning Board’s draft amendment. Limiting noise to no more than 5 dBA above
background levels assumes we know the background level. Normal practice for
developers is to measure background levels at several sites within the bounds of their

1
NYSDEC. 2001. Assessing and Mitigating Noise Impacts. Program Policy. Albany, NY.
2
Town of Cape Vincent. June 28, 2006. DRAFT - A Local Law to Amend the Town of Cape Vincent Zoning Law.
3
A little dB math might help you understand these differences. A 3 dBA increase is just noticeable, 5 dBA will be
noticeable, a 10 dBA increase is a doubling of sound and a 20 dBA difference is four times louder.

2
Clif Schneider SLW DEIS COMMENTS June 12, 2007

wind farm (e.g., Clayton Wind Farm DEIS4). AES-Acciona was an exception to the
norm when they chose not to conduct a background survey. Rather, they cited a
reference value from the NYSDEC noise policy that a typical ambient sound level in
rural environments is 45 dBA. This approach may have some validity if applied to
assessing the impact from a relatively small industrial project, but for a project with the
scope and scale of a 96-turbine wind farm, I do not believe it is appropriate. Had AES-
Acciona continued to read NYSDEC’s policy they would have understood why other
developers conduct background noise surveys rather than cite reference values, “If there
is any concern that levels based on reference values do not accurately reflect ambient
SPL(sound pressure levels), field measurements should be undertaken to determine
ambient SPLs.”

There is evidence to show that a 45 dBA background noise level is not representative of
Cape Vincent. At the M4 monitoring site for the Clayton Wind Farm located near
DePaulville, daytime background noise levels (L90) averaged approximately 30 dBA for
wind speeds less than 13.4 mph (6 m/s); at night the sound levels were even lower
averaging 25 dBA. At wind speeds over 30 mph (13.4 m/s), usually in the day, noise
levels increased to 47 dBA. However, much of the noise measured at higher velocities is
due to wind affecting the microphone. In addition, I measured background noise at my
home and the Bell’s home on Gosier Road and both series of measurements confirmed
the results obtained at the Clayton Wind Farm; in fact, rarely did background levels
approach 45 dBA. Therefore, the assumption that a 45 dBA background accurately
reflects conditions in Cape Vincent is misleading. Background noise levels in Cape
Vincent are much lower. AES-Acciona commented that, “The highest predicted level of
48.3 dBA is only 3.3 dBA above existing ambient of 45 dBA. This level is below the 5
dBA increase allowed per the draft Town of Cape Vincent amended zoning regulations.”
As we shall see shortly, this conclusion is based on a faulty assumption regarding
background noise.

There is also an extremely important point here that must not be missed or ignored -
night-time background noise levels are substantially lower than levels in daytime. Night
noise levels are less because winds normally diminish and human activity declines as
well. Furthermore, during spring through fall many of us enjoy the quiet evenings
outdoors and most of us sleep with our windows opened because Cape Vincent is cooler
and quieter at night. These normal behaviors, however, will expose us to any increase in
background noise – we should easily notice any increase in noise attributable to wind
turbines. Yet, there is no consideration of night-time noise levels from turbines in AES-
Acciona’s sound level report. AES-Acciona’s assumption that background noise is the
same day or night is just as preposterous as if a police department assumed crime only
takes place during the day. In fighting crime or evaluating the impacts of wind turbine
noise, if you want to get it right you better not limit your focus.

Masking Sound – In a very personal way, I understand the relationship between low
night-time background noise levels and perception. I have a problem with tinnitus, which
is commonly referred to as “ringing in the ears.” Anyone with tinnitus will agree that it is

4
http://www.ppmenergy.com/horsecreek/

3
Clif Schneider SLW DEIS COMMENTS June 12, 2007

most annoying at night because the background noise level in a quiet bedroom is low,
making the ringing the most dominant sound in your head. During the day, however, the
ringing is less noticeable because background noise levels are higher, which tend to mask
the ringing. This is similar to what we can all expect with wind turbine noise – it will be
much more noticeable at night.

The Planning Board should also consider the number of residents who may be affected by
night-time turbine noise. Swedish researchers found that 36% of their survey
respondents were very annoyed by turbines when wind turbine noise exceeded 40 dBA5
and AES-Acciona predicts that wind turbine noise levels at many non-participating
landowners will exceed 40 dBA. Annoyance due to wind turbines is not all about sound
levels either. In their 2000 survey of wind farm residents in Sweden, researchers6
concluded that “…the proportions of respondents annoyed by wind turbine noise are
higher than for other community noise sources at the same A-weighted SPL and the
proportion annoyed increases more rapidly.” Below is their Figure 3 that shows wind
turbine noise is more annoying at lower levels than aircraft, road traffic and railway
noise.

These studies suggest there may be substantial numbers of Cape residents who may be
adversely affected by the character of the sound as well as sound levels from the St.
Lawrence Wind Farm.

Atmospheric Stability – The issue of atmospheric stability and wind turbine noise was
the topic of an extensive body of research by the Dutch physicist, G.P. van den Berg7.
Van den Berg describes his introduction to the problem when he tried to understand “why
people complained about noise from wind turbines that according to wind developers and
acoustic consultants they should not even be able to hear.” His first clue came from a
comment made by a Dutch citizen who lived close to the German Rhede Wind Park. He
could see wind turbines near his house rotating rapidly while his garden was quiet and
still. Van den Berg taught atmospheric physics and knew that on nice summer evenings
the atmosphere becomes stable. Atmospheric stability is when the vertical movement of
5
Pedersen E, H Halmstad. 2003, Nose annoyance from wind turbines – a review. Swedish Environmental Protection
Agency Report No. 5308.
6
Pedersen, E.and K.Persson Waye. 2004. Annoyance due to wind turbine noise: a dose-response relationship.
J.Acoust.Soc.Am.,Vol.116,No.6
7
Van den Berg, G.P. 2006. The sounds of high winds: the effect of atmospheric stability on wind turbine sound and
microphone noise. PhD Dissertation. University of Groningen. Groningen, The Netherlands.

4
Clif Schneider SLW DEIS COMMENTS June 12, 2007

air is dampened and the air mass close to ground can be decoupled from winds aloft, i.e.,
winds at turbine hub height could be strong while velocities at ground could be calm.
Consequently, at night turbines could generate maximum noise without the masking
affect of wind at ground level rustling leaves and trees and without the masking noise
associated with daytime activities.

Van den Berg’s research also revealed that atmospheric stability at night also creates
changes in the angle of attack of turbine blades such that turbine sound levels increase
approximately 5 dBA. At a distance, noise from two or more turbines can arrive
simultaneously and increase the fluctuation level of the noise by approximately 9 dBA.
This is because the air at night is stable, less variable and more consistent. Van den Berg
notes: “The magnitude of this effect thus depends on stability, but also on the number of
wind turbines and their distances from the observer. The contrast between wind turbine
and ambient levels is therefore at night more pronounced.”

Van den Berg also provided some insight into the change in character of night-time wind
turbine noise. At night during stable conditions, the daytime swishing sound becomes
more fluctuating or modulated. “Human perception is most sensitive to modulation
frequencies close to 4 Hz of sound with a frequency of approximately 1 kHz.,” he notes
and speculates that it is this amplitude modulated sound that people find particularly
annoying.

Atmospheric stability is not an infrequent occurrence – rather, it is all too common. Van
den Berg found levels varied from 10-30% of nights throughout the Netherlands. From
various internet sources, I used local wind speed and cloud cover data to estimate
atmospheric stability for Cape Vincent during May 2007 and found stable conditions in
27 nights. The take home message with atmospheric stability is that wind turbines can be
operating and noisy while all is calm and quiet at ground level, and this will not be an
infrequent event in Cape Vincent.

Modeling Wind Turbine Noise Effects – As mentioned earlier, mathematical models

were employed by AES-Acciona to predict noise levels at various distances from their
proposed wind turbine locations. Moreover, they neither used a measured background
level nor did they consider quieter night-time background levels or the effects of
atmospheric stability. I wanted to better understand wind turbine noise at the Bell’s
home on Gosier Road, so I did some of my own calculations.

In my noise predictions I used the same ISO 9613 standard for calculating spherical
propagation loss as the AES-Acciona model and assumed a similar sound level of 105.3
dBA, 10o C temperature and 70% humidity. The following table shows the comparisons
of my calculations versus some of AES-Acciona’s predicted sound levels from Table 5 in
their sound report. The very close agreement of my predictions with their reported values
helped me proceed with predicting accumulated turbine noise at the Bell’s home.

5
Clif Schneider SLW DEIS COMMENTS June 12, 2007

TABLE 1. Comparison of wind turbine sound levels at various distances from a single
Gamesa G87 turbine with a source level of 105.3 dBA (see AES-Acciona Sound Level
Report for Table 5 data).
My AES
Distance Calculated Table 5
(ft) Values Data
600 48.4 47.8
800 45.7 45.4
1000 43.5 43.4
1200 41.7 41.7
1400 40.1 40.2
1600 38.8 38.9
1800 37.5 37.7
2000 36.4 36.6

In predicting noise levels at Mike and Delores Bell’s home I used the source levels for
the Gamesa G87 (the model proposed for SLW) wind turbines for various wind speeds
within the operational range of the G87 (5-12 m/s) because wind turbine noise varies
depending on the speed of the rotor8. I calculated the total noise from ten of the closest
wind turbines that surround their property (all ten within 0.68 miles). The total predicted
noise varied from 43.2 to 48.4 dBA; again, the variation depends on the wind speed
(Figure 1).

In Figure 1 I have also included estimates of the night-time background noise that I
adapted from the Clayton Wind Farm’s M-4 monitoring site. I had to convert the hub
height wind speeds used in their background assessment in order to be compatible with
wind turbine source levels which are referenced to a 10-m height9. I also incorporated a
line that represents the Planning Board’s noise policy, e.g., “5 dBA above background.”
In order for AES-Acciona to comply with the Planning Board’s guidelines, wind turbine
noise predictions (black squares) would have to fall between background levels (black
triangles) and the solid black line that denotes the Planning Board’s restrictions. The
graph clearly demonstrates that at night AES-Acciona’s ten wind turbines surrounding
the Bell’s home will exceed the Planning Board’s adopted guidelines; they will not
comply for any of the wind speeds. Moreover, this analysis does not include other
factors that can exacerbate the problem even more, i.e., atmospheric stability, two or
more turbines operating in synchrony, or the special character of the sound.

I also plotted the same predictions of wind turbine noise over the daytime background
levels observed at the M-4 monitoring site (Figure 2). Again, the results demonstrate that
for much of the day, when wind speeds are < 9 m/s, wind turbine noise will exceed the “5
dBA above background” restriction adopted by the Planning Board. At higher wind
speeds background noise is higher than wind turbine noise, but as I mentioned earlier
8
Hessler, D.M. 2006. Environmental sound survey and noise impact assessment. Prepared for: Dairy Hills Wind Farm,
LLC.
9
To convert hub height wind speeds to 10m height I used the wind speed calculator at
http://www.windpower.org/en/tour/wres/calculat.htm. I used Class 1 roughness (0.03m) from AWS Truewind
(www.awstruewind.com) map of Cape Vincent.

6
Clif Schneider SLW DEIS COMMENTS June 12, 2007

measuring background noise levels at higher wind speeds (e.g., > 5 m/s) is very
problematicalError: Reference source not found.

70.0

60.0
45 dBA Assumed Background
by AES-Acciona
50.0
Sound Levels (dBA)

40.0

30.0

20.0 Night-time Background Noise

- DePaulville
Planning Board Guideline - 5
10.0 dBA Above
Turbine Noise @ Bells - Ten
Turbines < 0.68 mi.
0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Wind Speed (m/s @ 10m height)

Figure 1. NIGHT - Wind turbine noise estimates for the M. Bell residence, Gosier Rd.,
Cape Vincent. Night-time background noise levels based on Clayton Wind Farm M-4
monitoring site, DePaulville, NY.

70.0

60.0
45 dBA Assumed Background
by AES-Acciona
50.0
Sound Level (dBA)

40.0

30.0

Daytime Background Noise -

20.0 DePaulville
Planning Board Guideline - 5
10.0 dBA Above
Turbine Noise @ Bells - Ten
Turbines < 0.68 mi.
0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Wind Speed (m/s @ 10 m height)

Figure 2. DAY - Wind turbine noise estimates for the M. Bell residence, Gosier Rd.,
Cape Vincent. Daytime background noise levels based on Clayton Wind Farm M-4
monitoring site, DePaulville, NY.

7
Clif Schneider SLW DEIS COMMENTS June 12, 2007

For both night and day, it is not just that AES-Acciona is out of compliance; but that it far
exceeds the Planning Board’s policy, by as much as 20 dBA. NYSDEC’s policy,
Assessing and Mitigating Noise Impacts (2001), notes, “An increase of 10dBA deserves
consideration of avoidance and mitigation measures in most cases.” They go on to state
that “In non-industrial settings the SPL (sound pressure level) should probably not exceed
ambient noise by more than 6 dBA at the receptor (property line).” Moreover, I am
duplicating NYSDEC’s Table B in their policy so you can better judge the impact of
AES-Acciona’s wind turbine siting plan on the Bell’s home:

According the NYSDEC guidelines, the level of predicted noise at the Bell’s home will
be intrusive, very noticeable, objectionable and intolerable – it could not be more obvious
that AES-Acciona’s wind farm will be far more audible than they would like you to
believe.

Setback Distance – After reviewing much of this wind turbine noise information, I had
difficulty trying to understand how AES-Acciona came up with a 1,200 ft setback from
non-participating landowners. Looking back to Table 1 and the predicted noise levels of
a single wind turbine at various distances, wind turbine noise at 1,200 ft (366 m) is about
42 dBA. Since this was close to their assumed background noise level of 45 dBA,
perhaps AES-Acciona used this as a gauge for establishing a setback from their wind
turbines. My calculations, however, showed these setbacks are baseless if you consider:
1) the quiet night-time background levels in Cape Vincent (25 dBA), 2) increases
associated with atmospheric stability, 3) synchrony of two or more wind turbines, and 4)
multiple wind turbines placed around a residence. All of these factors would require a
much greater setback to meet local noise standard.

I felt a better approximation of setback distance, one that at least accounts for night-time
background levels and the Planning Board’s draft amendment, is to determine the
distance where the sound of a Gamesa G87 turbine equals 30 dBA, or 5 dBA above the
25 dBA background noise. I used the ISO 9613 model with a source level of 105.3 dBA
and predicted that a residence would have to be 3,457 ft. (1,054 m) away from a single
wind turbine in order for noise to be 30 dBA. Of course, this distance would not meet
Planning Board guidelines if more than one turbine was placed in proximity to a
residence, nor would it account for additional wind turbine noise associated with
atmospheric stability and synchrony. However, a 3,457 ft. setback from each non-
participating residence is much more compatible with Planning Board guidelines than the
1,200 ft. currently used by AES-Acciona, and it at least has a methodological basis.

8
Clif Schneider SLW DEIS COMMENTS June 12, 2007

In predicting wind turbine noise levels, AES-Acciona must also be made aware that the
“5 dBA above background” limit is to be measured from the property line, not each
residence. This is not a problem for most non-participants who have small building lots,
but it can be a problem for a few others who have a large building lot. For example, wind
turbines numbered 18, 75 and 82 are approximately 100 feet and less from the property
line of non-participating landowners. Predicted noise levels from these wind turbines are
approximately 66 dBA, which far exceeds your guideline, even if you assumed a 45 dBA
background noise level. There are a number of other close-to-the-line placements where
wind turbine noise will be louder at the property line than the residence.

AES-Acciona has another setback problem that they need to address, which is related to
your draft zoning amendment, but not specifically to noise. In the draft zoning
amendment you adopted it states, “All CWPFs shall be setback a minimum of 1,000 feet
or 1.5 times the Wind Power Tower Height, whichever is greater, from the … CWFP
exterior project property lines” I am assuming that an “exterior property line” refers to
the property line shared by participating and non-participating landowners; whereas, an
“interior property line” is shared by two or more participating landowners. AES-Acciona
has either missed or ignored this provision of your guideline. From the maps provided by
AES-Acciona, I assumed a parcel was a non-participant in the project if there were no
wind turbines or connecting lines noted within the parcel’s property lines. I found thirty
wind turbines not sited in accordance with your guideline, all being within 1,000 feet of
non-participant landowner property lines (i.e., exterior project property lines). There is
also a landowner whose property shows three turbines on AES-Acciona’s maps, but who
remains an adamant non-participant. In addition, there are another three turbines within
1,000 feet of her property lines.

I have several questions regarding AES-Acciona’s disregard for the Planning Boards
setback guideline. If the Planning Board was aware of the misplacement of such a large
number of wind turbines, why didn’t you immediately reject the DEIS and instruct AES-
Acciona to recast their siting plan? Also, if you were aware of the problem from the
start, why didn’t you make a public announcement that a large number of these turbines
would have to be relocated or removed? This would have saved our community a lot of
unnecessary grief and turmoil.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Professional Review – First and most important, I suggest that the Planning Board hire a
consultant to undertake a review of AES-Acciona’s claim that they will meet the
Planning Board’s noise guideline. You should also have a competent consultant review
my calculations and conclusions as well. I do not profess to be an acoustic engineer, but
I have learned enough in my “hard look” at the DEIS and other materials to know AES-
Acciona has not done a thorough and comprehensive assessment of the potential wind
turbine noise impacts on our community. But, be careful of who you hire as a consultant,
because many who do this kind of work may have had a financial connection to wind
farm developers in the past and will not want to “bite the hand that feeds them.” Look

9
Clif Schneider SLW DEIS COMMENTS June 12, 2007

for an out-of-state consultant who is not tied to the wind farm industry. I would
appreciate knowing what consultants you will be considering before you hire them – I’d
like to check their credentials and past experience. I cannot emphasize how important it
is to get a fair, honest and unbiased review of all this technical information.

Changing Setbacks – After my review of predicted wind turbine noise impacts, I think a
1,200 foot setback between wind turbines and non-participating landowners is much too
close. This distance might make sense if developers consider only daytime background
noise levels on windy days, but it is nonsense if you consider quiet, night-time
background noise levels that are typical in Cape Vincent. Consequently, a better
approach is to require a 3,457 ft (1 km) setback, since it recognizes the crucial
importance of night-time background levels, it includes your 5 dBA above background
guideline, and it uses the same method as AES-Acciona uses to calculate wind turbine
noise spread loss. I expect developers will try to discount a 3,457 ft setback, because no
one else has had such a restrictive limit. That may be true, but the reason why we need a
greater setback distance is because of Cape Vincent’s wind turbine noise guideline, 5
dBA above background. If you are disturbed by my proposed setback from non-
participating landowners, then let a professional consultant determine whether a 1,200 or
3,457 foot setback is most compatible with the Planning Board’s guideline.

In order to see how these two setback changes altered the scope of AES-Acciona’s
project, I reconfigured the wind farm plan and assumed the Planning Board would
enforce the setback rule from exterior project property lines and I also assumed a 3,457
ft. (1 km) setback distance from non-participating landowners. The revised project would
lose more than half of the proposed 96 wind turbines. A wind farm with about 40
turbines is not that unusual in New York; currently there are a number of similar sized
wind farms, both planned and operational (Table 3).

TABLE 3.. A sampling of other wind farm projects in New York and the number of
turbines projected for each farm project.

Wind Farm Projects Number of

in NY Turbines
Madison 7
Steel Winds 8
Wethersfield-Eagle 10
Fenner 20
Arkwright-Horizon 40
LIOWP 40
Cohocton 50
Ellenburg 54
Dairy Hills 60
Centerville 67
Clinton 68
Jordanville 70
High Sheldon 86

10
Clif Schneider SLW DEIS COMMENTS June 12, 2007

St. Lawrence (AES) 96

Maple Ridge 195

Buffer Contracts - To date, I think AES-Acciona has demonstrated the power of money
to influence public attitudes. Project landowners in Cape Vincent are unabashedly
supportive of AES-Acciona’s wind turbine project, as they should be. But, think how
different their reaction would be had New York State taken their land for AES-Acciona’s
project without any financial compensation. I suggest they would not be happy and they
would not be praising the benefits of alternative energy; rather they would be
complaining about the loss of their Constitutional Rights. Money has a way of changing
and shaping our attitudes and perceptions. The two Swedish researchers I quoted earlier
also showed that a person’s attitude affects how they view noise and shadow flicker, i.e.,
people are far more tolerant of these issues/problems if they are positively predisposed to
wind turbines. I propose that the Planning Board should allow AES-Acciona to spend a
little more money to possibly change attitudes of the project’s detractors and to also
provide AES-Acciona with an opportunity to expand the number of wind turbines in their
project.

The Planning Board’s draft guideline notes: “All CWPs “(wind turbines) shall be setback
a minimum of 750 feet from any existing residential building located on a parcel that is
part of the wind power facility (my emphasis).” If AES-Acciona feels a 3,457 ft setback
is too restrictive, they can negotiate contracts with non-participating landowners and
include them in their project for the sole purpose of allowing closer placement of turbines
to non-participating residences – call them buffer contracts. This arrangement would
provide protection for those non-participants that wanted protection i.e., they would not
sign agreements and thereby maintain a 3,457 ft setback from their residence. But for
others, it would allow them to obtain some compensation for a noisier home environment
brought on by closer wind turbine placement. Another advantage of this approach is that
it gives non-participants some real leverage in negotiating with AES-Acciona – they
should expect to do far better than the token neighbor agreements paid to Maple Ridge
non-participants. Yes, this could mean an additional expense to AES-Acciona’s
operation, but these payments, in some small way, may help heal our divided community.

Respecting Rights - I understand that providing these protections for non-participants

will cost other landowners some loss of financial opportunities. I would hope the
Planning Board understands what I consider an important distinction between altering a
view and creating noise. If my neighbor wants to paint her home a horrible color or make
a tasteless addition to her property, I do not believe I’m entitled to complain, although
some may disagree with my opinion. On the other hand, if he decides to play rap music
all night, every night at sound levels 20 dBA above my background noise level, then his
rights end where my ears begin. In addition, I do not think it is appropriate for any Town
official to tell me to go inside, close your windows and turn on your air conditioner (one
that I’m force to buy). If wind turbines are improperly placed, noise and flicker can be an
intrusion on my property by others who will benefit financially from their operation. All
I am asking is for non-participants within and around the St. Lawrence Wind Farm to
have a say in how much wind turbine noise reaches their homes. I am not saying that no

11
Clif Schneider SLW DEIS COMMENTS June 12, 2007

wind turbine noise should reach their homes, I am only saying there should be a limit,
and the 5 dBA limit in the Planning Board’s guidelines provides a reasonable balance
between protection and development. The Planning Board should stick to its draft
guidelines.

Compliance and Accountability - I know the Planning Board expects that applicants for
various building projects, whether residential or commercial, to adhere to any stipulations
and requirements set by the Board. I would hope that the Planning Board takes the same
position with AES-Acciona. I suggest the Board should require post-operational
background noise surveys to ensure that AES-Acciona conforms to their own predictions
and that their wind turbines comply with the Planning Board’s noise guideline. Some
thought should also be given to accountability if AES-Acciona or a subsequent owner
fails to meet Planning Board standards. Perhaps some accountability provision should be
incorporated into the negotiations that will eventually transpire between the developer
and the town, school and county taxing authorities, i.e., failure to comply leads to full tax
payment. If the developer is confident in its noise impact assessment, it should be
agreeable to a big penalty for non-compliance. If they balk, it suggests they are not very
confident about their noise predictions. Moreover, if they balk it should be a clear sign to
the Planning Board that the developer’s predictions should not be trusted.

If night-time atmospheric stability results in excessive wind turbine noise, I would further
suggest that AES-Acciona be required to shut down wind turbines when winds at ground
level diminish to turbine cut-in speeds (e.g., 5 m/s). If developers refute the effect of
atmospheric stability and claim there will not be any wind turbine noise if the wind isn’t
blowing, they should then happily agree to shut their wind turbines down when ground
level winds drop below cut-in speed. Having this option available will make certain that
AES-Acciona does a careful study of their noise impacts, especially if they know before
hand that if their turbines exceed Cape Vincent’s standards they will be forced to slow or
shut down their turbines.

Bonding Protection – Some thought should also be given to how the Planning Board
may have to react, if negative impacts from wind turbine exceed the best predictions and
forecasts of the developers. How will the Planning and Town Boards deal with
legitimate complaints? More importantly, will you have any leverage to have wind farm
operators respond to your concerns and comply with your request for change? If
problems arise, such as noise levels that are disturbing and annoying, it may drive some
people to sell their homes and move. If so, will they lose some of the value of their
home?10 Also, how much of the loss will be attributable to the problems with wind
turbines, how can the loss be assessed and is there some way in which these landowners
can be compensated by the wind farm operators for their loss? In your draft zoning
amendment there was a provision for the developer to provide a bond to cover the cost of
wind turbine removal, if the developer/operator were to fail financially. I think the
Planning and Town Boards should be more concerned with individual property loss of
non-participants than tower removal costs. My suggestion is to use bonding to provide
these residents with protection from property loss.
10
I have reviewed studies that demonstrate there has not been a loss of value of homes within sight of wind turbines. But,
none of the studies I reviewed dealt with loss of property value associated with annoying noise and flicker impacts.

12
Clif Schneider SLW DEIS COMMENTS June 12, 2007

I have spent a considerable amount of time reviewing material provided in the SLW
DEIS and I honestly believe AES-Acciona needs to do a better job. I hope you
understand my interest is not to eliminate the St. Lawrence Wind Farm, but rather, to pare
back the size and scope so participants can benefit financially without adversely affecting
their non-participating neighbors. Attached to this letter I have also assembled a number
of questions for AES-Acciona and their consultants. The questions cover a variety of
issues related to the DEIS and not just those pertaining to the noise report.

Thank you for taking the time to read and consider the issues I’ve raised in this letter.

Sincerely yours,

Clif Schneider

13
Clif Schneider SLW DEIS COMMENTS June 12, 2007

Questions: Sound Level Report

1. In your noise report you asserted, “Measurements recently obtained at other proposed
wind farm sites in New York confirm that the 45 dBA level presented in the
NYSDEC noise policy is fairly accurate.” Would you provide copies of the data to
support this statement?
2. For other wind farm projects in New York, how were background noise levels
determined (e.g., assumed level v. measured level) and what were the levels used?
3. At most rural wind farm sites, are night-time background levels significantly lower
than daytime levels? If so, why not use background levels for the two periods?
4. Comparing night and day background levels, which period has the potential for wind
turbine noise to be more easily perceived and more potentially annoying?
5. If a background survey were to be completed in 2007, would you be surprised that
night-time background L90 levels in Cape Vincent could be closer to 30 dBA than 45
dBA?
6. Have any consultants from AES-Acciona’s other projects done background
measurement instead of assuming 45 dBA background levels for rural settings? If so,
why wasn’t a background level survey considered for Cape Vincent?
7. In your noise report you state, “In addition, the NYSDEC policy indicates that the
typical ambient level in rural environments is 45 dBA, where ambient noise is defined
as the all encompassing noise from sources near and far and is determined by the Leq
measure.” Would you show where the NYSDEC policy states that the 45 dBA level
is a Leq metric?
8. For most wind farm background noise level assessments in New York and elsewhere,
which metric is more commonly used to describe background noise levels, Leq or L90?
What does NYSDEC guideline say about the application of each metric?
9. If background levels are actually lower than the 45 dBA that you cite, would this hurt
or help your contention that wind farm noise will be inaudible?
10. If the NYSDEC 2001 noise policy suggests making special considerations for
sensitive receptors, i.e., people not buildings, then what steps have you taken to
identify sensitive receptors in Cape Vincent?
11. On your maps outlining the sound level isobars, would you modify the key for
receptor/residences to denote those residences that are part of the project from those
residences that are not part of the project?
12. Was the CadnaA software used for noise modeling specifically designed for wind
farm noise prediction? If not, why not choose a model specifically designed for
turbine noise assessment, e.g., WindPRO and WiTuProp?
13. What tests were done to evaluate various software product outputs before the
selection of CadnaA and could you provide the comparison report?
14. Assuming you used CadnaA to predict noise impacts for other projects, how did
model predictions for those projects compare with follow-up noise level surveys once
the farms became operational?
15. Aside from the coordinates for the turbines and receptors and the 45 dBA background
level, what input parameters for CadnaA were needed to predict noise levels in Cape
Vincent?
16. How sensitive were predicted noise levels to variations in these input parameters(e.g.,
+/- 10, 25 & 50% differences)?

14
Clif Schneider SLW DEIS COMMENTS June 12, 2007

17. In setting up the CadnaA model, did you assume a neutral, unstable or stable
atmosphere?
18. What provision did you make to model the effects of a stable atmosphere; similar to
what is fairly common in Cape Vincent at night during spring and summer?
19. During stable atmospheric conditions with wind turbines operating, how much louder
with they be compared to your predicted noise levels?
20. From May 1 through October 1 how frequent an occurrence is atmospheric stability at
night?
21. Table 4 and the map in your sound level report do not provide sufficient detail to see
specific noise predictions for each of the 246 nearest residences. Could you provide a
table with each residence, owner’s name, location and predicted noise level, similar to
that provided for the Clayton Wind Farm DEIS?
22. Since you assumed that day and night noise impacts are identical (i.e., you did not
provide separate model outputs), in the table above, could you also include another
column for model predictions assuming a L90= 25 dBA background level using
maximum sound output from the turbines?
23. Referring to Table 4 in the sound level report you state, “This table should be used as
a general guide only since the values do not include the additive effect of multiple
turbines located in close proximity to each other.” Why weren’t multiple turbine
effects considered?
24. For typical night-time wind turbine sounds that will be produced in the St. Lawrence
Wind Farm, will they be similar in character to normal background levels?
25. If the turbines noise were determined to be “out of character with existing sounds,”
would they then be considered annoying?
26. What information have you collected from other projects that could be used to
compare the sound frequency distributions of background noise and turbine +
background noise?
27. Will the perceived wind turbine sounds at night be louder or softer than what is
perceived during the day?
28. How will night-time, stable atmosphere affect turbine noise at receptors > 0.25 miles
away?
29. Will there be a pulse-like sound during atmospherically stable nights?
30. What kind of variation could there be between the peaks and baseline of this night-
time noise?
31. If there is some variation in night-time turbine noise, what do the levels in your model
predictions represent, e.g., the troughs, peaks or average levels?
32. If sound could be perceived as louder at night-time, why wasn’t this considered in
your modeling?
33. Can you guarantee that none of our neighbors will be annoyed by the sound of wind
turbines?
34. If not, then from the available scientific literature how many residents of Cape
Vincent could possibly find the noise annoying?
35. For those who find the noise annoying, how many could possibly have sleep
disturbance problems attributable to wind turbine noise?
36. What are some of the possible negative health effects associated with sleep
disturbance and loss?

15
Clif Schneider SLW DEIS COMMENTS June 12, 2007

37. If predicted noise is too loud at one of the receptors, will you consider reducing rotor
speeds to reduce sound emissions? If not, how will you mitigate your error?
38. For the turbines that AES-Acciona will ultimately choose, can they be software
controlled to lessen noise?
39. You assert in your DEIS that based on your model forecasts wind turbine noise will
not be a problem in Cape Vincent, if so, would you agree to cut back or shut down
any turbines found to exceed the noise predictions in your sound level report?
40. How many village residents would have to complain about excessive wind turbine
noise before you would consider shutting down a turbine?
41. Does NYSDEC guidelines say anything about the quality or character of sound as it
relates to assessing and mitigating noise impacts?

Questions: Flicker Assessment

1. Is there something missing from your shadow flicker analysis report or does a single
map represent the extent of your analytical effort?
2. Do the calculated impacts of wind turbine shadow flicker consider each home, lawn
and garden, or is the impact based on a 1 m2 receptor, similar to the size of a single
window?
3. For comparative purposes, can you demonstrate the effect on hours of shadow flicker
exposure on all non-participating residences using a 30 m2 surface area? How would
the hours of exposure compare to those based on a 1 m2 receptor?
4. What constitutes an acceptable level of wind turbine shadow flicker on non-
participating landowners and who determines this level?
5. What town, county and State standards can be used ensure that shadow flicker
impacts are minimal on each non-participating residence?
6. If there are no standards to govern the exposure of wind turbine shadow flicker on
non-participating residences, then how will we know what is acceptable and what is
not acceptable?
7. Can the combined effects of both noise and flicker be even more annoying than their
individual effects?
8. How can individual citizens understand shadow flicker effects looking at your maps,
wouldn’t it be better if you listed the hours of exposure to each residence in a tabled
format?
9. Because both noise and shadow flicker can annoy residents, particularly non-
participants who have no financial compensation for wind turbine operations, why not
try to integrate these two potential problems to better assess annoyance impacts?
10. Because shadow flicker effects have been linked to people who have migraine
headaches and epilepsy, what has been done to canvas our community to determine if
any Cape residents with these conditions live within the bounds of the proposed wind
farm?
11. If some residents do have health problems that may be exacerbated by wind turbine
shadow flicker, how will AES-Acciona mitigate these potential problems?

16
Clif Schneider SLW DEIS COMMENTS June 12, 2007

Questions: Avian Studies

1. Where is the report on wetlands impacts?
2. How representative is the 2006 avian data compared to a long-term average for the
Cape Vincent area?
3. What evidence is available that suggests a single year of bird and bat data adequately
describes average conditions for Cape Vincent’s avian resources?
4. If USFWS and NYSDEC recommend at least a 3-year study of bird and bat
resources, will AES-Acciona comply?
5. What is the specific flight corridor through Cape Vincent for the ten principal
migratory species?
6. How have the results from your bird studies affected placement of individual turbines
and the overall wind farm layout?
7. What specific turbines do you predict will have the highest bird and bat mortalities
for the ten principal migratory species? What turbines for the ten most abundant
nesting species?
8. What is the predicted annual mortality for the ten most abundant migratory and
nesting species for the entire wind farm?
9. Are there some areas within the wind farm footprint that are less problematic for bird
and bat mortality than others? Is so, how was this determined?
10. At what level of predicted mortality would you consider adjusting/removing a
particular turbine? Who determines that threshold?
11. If migratory and nesting bird mortalities were ten fold higher than predicted, what
effect would this have on the wind turbine operation?
12. How often was your radar equipment factory and field calibrated?
13. What steps were involved in the field calibration protocol?
14. Would radar studies be better if they were combined with acoustic studies to
differentiate radar targets as to species, and if so, why hasn’t this been done?
15. What other assessment technique was used to corroborate the radar data, (e.g. visual
observations, daytime thermal imaging or moon watching)?
16. You speculate that nocturnal migration direction may be “…related more to the shape
of the shoreline located within 1.5 km of the radar station than with flight direction
over the entire project area.” This in turn suggests migrating birds may be hesitant to
fly over the river. You also state that passage rates are based on a 3 km, 1-
dimensional front, but 37.4% of that front lies over water, which migrating birds seem
to avoid. In your calculation of mean passage rate (t/km/hr), did you divide total
targets by 1.9 km or 3.0 km? Do your passage rate estimates take into account the
reduced effective area of the radar sweep? What proportion of the targets were
beyond the shoreline, out over the river?
17. If after adjusting for over-water bias, the mean passage was 1,092 t/km/hr., how
would this compare with other sites in New York and the U.S.?
18. Can you provide the comments from NYSDEC and USFWS that supported your
locating a single radar sampling location 379 m from the shore?
19. A single sampling site for your radar studies seems very restricted, particularly when
the range did not encompass the full width of the project, why weren’t more radar
sites sampled?

17
Clif Schneider SLW DEIS COMMENTS June 12, 2007

20. In making regional comparisons of passage rates, other than t/km/hr, what other
parameters were involved in your analysis?
21. If providing baseline information was a key goal for your 1-year study, why did you
have such restricted time frames for your sampling components, e.g., 63 days during
fall migration and 45 days for spring radar studies?
22. If we are interested in specie specific migration times, heights and locations, what
value are average metrics for all “targets”?
23. You note that the radar study was “…designed to collect data that could be used to
characterize nocturnal migration over the project area and also be used in a larger
statewide comparison of results from numerous sites.” You also state,
“Measurements from radar studies potentially are highly variable due to a number of
factors including observer bias and the radar settings affecting target detection.” I
also assume that for the other radar studies in New York they were not undertaken
with the same equipment or the same operators. Therefore, how can you state with
any confidence that, “Mean passage rates for fall 2006 were higher (346 t/km/hr) that
the average for NY: and the eastern U.S. (262 t/km/hr); however, these results are not
the highest passage rates reported at other New York sites?” How confident are you
of these estimates and conclusions?
24. Is it possible that a slight turn of the radar gain dial can substantially alter the number
of targets represented on the screen?

Questions: Visual Assessment Report

My major objection to the Visual Assessment Report (VAR) is its one-sided, cookie-
cutter view of Cape Vincent. It is one-sided because it represents the view of its single
author and no one else. Moreover, the author’s name and credentials are lacking;
consequently, he or she is a mystery critic and visual assessor of our community. Within
the VAR the author cites NYSDEC’s Policy, “Assessing and Mitigating Visual Impacts.”
The author, however, fails to note in that policy that “An applicant must demonstrate
through evidence provided by others e.g. recognized architectural review boards,
comparative studies that are clearly analogous, or other similar techniques, that the
public’s enjoyment and appreciation of the qualities of the aesthetic resource are not
compromised.” The author clearly fails to meet this standard – there is no confirmation
of the report’s views and conclusions from others. Most importantly, the author never
asked a single resident of Cape Vincent what they thought of the visual impact of the
proposed wind farm. There is a wide divergence of opinion in our community regarding
AES-Acciona’s proposed wind farm, and the author’s description of affected parties
never mentions that dynamic, showing a complete lack of understanding. The author is
so out of touch with our community that I wonder if he/she has ever been here.

I think each community in New York is unique and, if a developer is spending large sums
of money to pay for professional consultants, Cape Vincent should get personalized
consideration. But that’s not what we got. The author used exactly the same conclusion
for the St. Lawrence Wind Farm as that included in the EISs for Chateguay and
Wethersfield Wind Farms. It is one thing to use common language to describe methods
or the use of a standardized guideline, but there should never be cookie-cutter copying for

18
Clif Schneider SLW DEIS COMMENTS June 12, 2007

a conclusion. To do that suggests the whole exercise was pre-packaged and pre-
determined to show there were no visual impacts. This was clearly wrong.

1. In section 3.4.1 Field Observation and Photography it states, “On December

12 and December 31, 2006 a field crew drove public roads and visited many of the
potentially affected visual resources (as determined through viewshed mapping) to
document existing visibility in the direction of proposed wind turbines.” On those two
dates, did the field crew include the author? If not, when did the author visit Cape
Vincent and how long did he/she stay?
2. What was the protocol for selecting the locations for the photographs? Were
any local residents, e.g., members of the artist guild etc., asked to provide
recommended viewpoints for the photos used in the simulations? For a future
iteration of the VAR, would you add viewpoints selected by local residents?
3. On page 32 of the VAR it states, “Cognitively, in the foreground zone (0-1/2
mile), human scale is an important factor in judging spatial relationships and the
relative size of objects,” why then were people missing from many of the photo-
simulations where turbines were theoretically less than ½ mile away? Will you
correct this in the next iteration of the VAR?
4. On page 4 of the VAR it states, “This evaluation includes both quantitative
(how much is seen and from what locations; or visual impact) and qualitative (how it
will be perceived; aesthetic impact) aspects of visual assessment.” Why did the
author choose not to quantify public perceptions and aesthetic impacts when it is
generally understood that public opinion is an important component in many visual
assessments and that public attitudes are routinely quantified?
5. For the “Affected Viewers” section on page 51 of the VRA, you should
consider additional classifications of affected viewers, such as those opposed, neutral
and supportive of wind farm development?
6. In your comment on page 51, “The presence of wind turbines may diminish
the aesthetic experience for those that believe that the rural landscape should be
preserved…,” what was the basis for this conclusion? How many local residents
were contacted for their opinion?
7. Because the VAR probably represents the opinion of a single, non-resident,
should AES-Acciona Energy undertake a survey to supplement the VRA in order to
gauge public reaction, preferences and opinions regarding the photo-simulations of
the proposed wind farm?
8. Since gauging public reaction and preferences to setback distances was a
difficult process for the Planning and Town Boards, would not a survey of the
public’s reaction to different setback alternatives in the photo-simulations provide a
much better way to examine community preferences?
9. An offset is a mitigating technique that can remedy an existing visual
problem, and on page 50 of the VAR’s it states, “Poorly maintained or dilapidated
structures and properties are not uncommon sights.” If so, why not consider offsets to
remove or improve Cape Vincent’s “poorly maintained and dilapidated structures?”
10. In section 4.0 Mitigation it states, “Considering the proposed Project includes
approximately 95 wind turbines that will be visible over a wide viewshed area,
traditional treatments such as fences, earthen berms and vegetative screening cannot

19
Clif Schneider SLW DEIS COMMENTS June 12, 2007

be applied in an effective manner to screen these major structures,” but why wouldn’t
the developer consider planting trees and shrubbery close to the homes of those
residents who would like their view of turbines diminished or removed?
11. Again, in section 4.0 Mitigation it states, “Reducing the height of the turbines
to a meaningful degree would substantially reduce the amount of energy produced
rendering the development of the wind energy project impractical or would require
constructing a greater number of smaller units to be economically viable.” Would the
author provide financial documentation to support his/her conclusion? (If AES-
Acciona is reluctant to release their financial information to justify this type of
conclusion then it should drop the argument)
12. The conclusion of the VAR states, “However, unlike development projects
such as housing complexes and commercial centers, the proposed wind energy
facility can and will be decommissioned and removed at the end of its useful working
life. All of the towers will be removed and the project area restored to as near its
present condition as possible, thus restoring the landscape to its original condition.”
Rather than go to the added expense of decommissioning the wind farm in ~20 years,
would AES-Acciona Energy consider turning over all the physical assets of the wind
farm to the Town of Cape Vincent for $5.00?

20